Recent guidelines concerning exercise for people with cancer provide evidence-based direction for exercise assessment and prescription for clinicians and their patients. Although the guidelines promote exercise integration into clinical care for people with cancer, they do not support strategies for bridging the guidelines with related resources or programs. Exercise program accessibility remains a challenge in implementing the guidelines, but that challenge might be mitigated with conceptual frameworks ("pathways") that connect patients with exercise-related resources. In the present paper, we describe a pathway model and related resources that were developed by an expert panel of practitioners and researchers in the field of exercise and rehabilitation in oncology and that support the transition from health care practitioner to exercise programs or services for people with cancer. The model acknowledges the nuanced distinctions between research and exercise programming, as well as physical activity promotion, that, depending on the available programming in the local community or region, might influence practitioner use. Furthermore, the pathway identifies and provides examples of processes for referral, screening, medical clearance, and programming for people after a cancer diagnosis. The pathway supports the implementation of exercise guidelines and should serve as a model of enhanced care delivery to increase the health and well-being of people with cancer.

Background. People with metastatic cancers experience poor quality of life (QoL), fatigue, and decreased physical function. Exercise improves these symptoms in the curative setting, but the efficacy and safety of exercise in the metastatic setting is uncertain.Methods. Prospective, randomized trials of moderate/high-intensity aerobic exercise or resistance training vs. control in patients with advanced/metastatic solid cancers were identified from prior reviews and updated using a search of PubMed. The mean and SD for validated outcome measures (QoL, physical function, and fatigue) were extracted for intervention and control groups at baseline and postintervention. The Mann-Whitney test was used to evaluate the effect of exercise on the pooled change between baseline and postintervention. Safety was evaluated qualitatively.Results. Sixteen trials were analyzed. Among patients with scores at the mean or 2SD above, exercise was not associated with significant or clinical difference in QoL or fatigue. In patients with baseline scores 2SD below mean, exercise was associated with nonsignificant difference meeting minimal clinical important difference in QoL (À2.8 vs. 4.6, P ¼ 0.28). For function, patients at the mean had nonstatistically significant, but clinically meaningful difference in the six-minute walk test (6-MWT) (14.7 vs. 29.0 m, P ¼ 0.44). In patients 2 SD below the mean, there was a clinically meaningful difference in two patient-reported functional subscales (0.1 vs. 5.3, P ¼ 0.076 and 0.44 vs. 8.5, P ¼ 0.465) and a clinically meaningful improvement in the 6-MWT (À7.5 vs. 27.0 m, P ¼ 0.34), although none of these associations met statistical significance. There were no differences in falls, fractures, or pain.Discussion. Exercise is associated with clinically meaningful improvements in QoL, function, and 6-MWT in some patients with metastatic cancer. Despite poor reporting of safety, there was no signal of increased harm from exercise in this setting.

No abstract

Whether treatment includes androgen deprivation or not, men who participate in higher levels of aerobic exercises report higher levels of masculinity, improved body image, and quality of life than those who are inactive. Future longitudinal research is required evaluating exercise level and its effect on masculinity and body image.

Objective To describe the adaptations made to implement virtual cancer rehabilitation at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as understand the experiences of patients and providers adapting to virtual care. Design Multimethod study. Setting : Cancer Centre. Participants Adult cancer survivors and oncology health care providers. Interventions Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures Framework-driven categorization of program modifications, qualitative interviews with patients and providers, and a comparison of process outcomes with the previous 90 days of in-person care via referrals, completed visits and attendance, method of delivery, weekly capacities, and wait times. Results The majority of program visits could be adapted to virtual delivery, with format, setting, and content modifications. Virtual care demonstrated an increase or maintenance in the number of completed visits by appointment type compared to in-person care, with attendance ranging from 80-93%. For most appointment types, capacities increased, while wait times decreased slightly. Overall, 168 patients (11% of all assessments and follow-ups) assessed virtually were identified by providers as requiring an in-person appointment due to re-assessment of musculoskeletal and/or neurological impairment (n=109, 65%) and lymphedema (n=59, 35%). The interviews (n=24) revealed that virtual care was an acceptable alternative in some circumstances, with the ability to: 1) increase access to care; 2) provide a sense of reassurance during a time of isolation; and 3) provide confidence in learning skills to self-manage impairments. Conclusions Many appointments can be successfully adapted to virtual formats to deliver cancer rehabilitation programming. Based on our findings, we provide practical recommendations that can be implemented by providers and programs to facilitate the adoption and delivery of virtual care.

Background: Although facility-based cancer rehabilitation and exercise programs exist, patients are often unable to attend due to distance, cost, and other competing obligations. There is a need for scalable remote interventions that can reach and serve a larger population. Methods: We conducted a mixed methods pilot study to assess the feasibility, acceptability and impact of CaRE@Home: an 8-week online multidimensional cancer rehabilitation and exercise program. Feasibility and acceptability data were captured by attendance and adherence metrics and through qualitative interviews. Preliminary estimates of the effects of CaRE@Home on patient-reported and physically measured outcomes were calculated. Results: A total of n = 35 participated in the study. Recruitment (64%), retention (83%), and adherence (80%) rates, along with qualitative findings, support the feasibility of the CaRE@Home intervention. Acceptability was also high, and participants provided useful feedback for program improvements. Disability (WHODAS 2.0) scores significantly decreased from baseline (T1) to immediately post-intervention (T2) and three months post-intervention (T3) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.008). Physical activity (GSLTPAQ) levels significantly increased for both Total LSI (p = 0.007 and p = 0.0002) and moderate to strenuous LSI (p = 0.003 and p = 0.002) from baseline to T2 and T3. Work productivity (iPCQ) increased from T1 to T3 (p = 0.026). There was a significant increase in six minute walk distance from baseline to T2 and T3 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.010) and in grip strength from baseline to T2 and T3 (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). Conclusions: Results indicate that the CaRE@Home program is a feasible and acceptable cancer rehabilitation program that may help cancer survivors regain functional ability and decrease disability. In order to confirm these findings, a controlled trial is required.

Purpose Physical activity (PA) programs for prostate cancer survivors have positive effects on many aspects of health-related quality of life. Translating this research into sustainable community-based settings is necessary to ensure access to programs for survivors. This study examines patient perspectives in the community-based TrueNTH Lifestyle Management (TrueNTH LM) program in Calgary, Canada. Methods Eleven men from programs at civic wellness centers participated in 2 small semistructured focus groups (n = 5 and 6) at the University of Calgary. Motivation for program initiation and adherence, benefits and barriers to participation, and individual satisfaction and feedback on program improvement were discussed. Audio recordings were transcribed and analyzed using thematic methodology guided by a pragmatic philosophy on the patient experience in the program. Results Themes identified included perceived benefits of participating (physical, psychological, and social), facilitators for involvement in the PA program (program design, initial free access, tailored to prostate cancer specific needs, psychosocial environment), and opportunities for improvement and sustainability (exercise as a part of standard care, cost structure, home-based options). Conclusions These findings provide valuable insight into patient perspectives on effective characteristics of prostate cancer and exercise programs. TrueNTH LM has implemented findings, and ensuring needs (benefits and barriers) are addressed for prostate cancer survivors when entering community-based PA programs.

No abstract